Remarks
At The 1997 National Association Of Broadcasters Radio Convention, New
Orleans: September 19, 1997

Good
afternoon. This may be my swan song, my friends. After 3-1/2 memorable
years at the FCC, I am soon to bid you adieu, probably some time next
month. Assuming the Senate confirms the four new Commissioners, I will
be stepping off the Commission, along with Chairman Hundt and Commissioner
Quello.

I
first wanted to express my appreciation to each of you for your cooperation
and support during my tenure. You have been a wonderful industry to work
with. In particular, thank you for your service above and beyond the call
of duty during major disasters -- when you give so much back to the community.

I
also have enjoyed a smooth working relationship with your association,
NAB. I would like to give my personal thanks to Eddie Fritts and all of
his fine crew, for their cooperation, advocacy and friendship during my
term. We have shared some exciting times indeed, and I will miss them.

In
looking back at my time at the Commission, I'm proud that I've made my
mark as a deregulator. I've opposed overregulation, and instead, urged
more marketplace- friendly approaches.

I'm
also known as a Commissioner who asked you all to "think outside of the
box" -- to stop thinking in terms of outdated regulatory schemes. Instead,
I urged you to accept new competition and to branch out to consider new
opportunities in the Information Age.

And
finally, you all know that I've been on the hot seat because of my stance
on the First Amendment. I didn't expect to become a poster child for free
speech, but my convictions run deep. Quite simply, I believe that freedom
of speech is the most important guarantee in our democracy, and that broadcasters
play a special role in safeguarding our freedom of speech. And because
of this core belief, I have consistently opposed unnecessary government
encroachment on program content. I am going to talk more about the First
Amendment in a moment.

As
I head out the FCC exit, four new Commissioners are entering. I'm told
that's more turnover among the Commissioners than ever before. Commissioner
Susan Ness is the only current commissioner who will soldier onward. I
am glad that she will be at the FCC to be the "voice of experience" during
this important transition.

Frankly,
I think some new blood is a good idea, given how weary the current Commissioners
are. We shouldered a very heavy load during our tenure. Among other things,
we implemented the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996, we relaxed
the radio ownership rules, we survived the onslaught of radio transfers
and we got dazzling digital TV on its way.

We've
had a few disappointments too. We couldn't agree to repeal our personal
attack and political editorial rules and we did not fix the comparative
hearing process. Nor did we act to repeal the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership
rule. But overall, I look back with pride at a productive tenure at the
Commission during a historic time.

Today,
I will discuss two issues -- ownership and content regulation. When you
are thinking about themes to communicate to the new Commissioners, one
theme ought to be the importance of your freedom to compete in an increasingly
competitive media marketplace.

A
second theme ought to be the defense of your press freedom in order to
ensure a truly democratic society.

Let
me start with the topic of radio and television ownership. The current
Commission intended to take up the issue of broadcast ownership rules.
I'm disappointed to report that, due to philosophical differences between
the four Commissioners, this hot potato will end up in the laps of the
new Commission.

Knowing
the importance of this issue to you, I urge you to take the time to come
to Washington and to educate the new Commissioners about the realities
of your business. You see, there are some in government who think that
consolidation in your industry spells the end for localism -- and that
it will negatively impact diversity. I know that some broadcasters agree
with this; others do not.

I
urge you to dispel any myths. Get the new commissioners out on a tour
of a working station. Let them talk frankly to your business people and
financiers. Spend the time to give them your perspective on the realities
of station ownership in the competitive radio world of the Nineties.

Armed
with this knowledge, I hope that the new Commission will establish sensible
rules that will allow you to realize some economies of scale and respond
to the actual competition you face. I think this can be done without sacrificing
localism and diversity.

In
my view, Congress signaled through the Telecom Act that the rules must
be liberalized. After all, it eliminated national limits on the number
of radio and TV stations a broadcaster can own. Congress also relaxed
the local radio ownership rules so that one entity can now own up to eight
radio stations in the largest markets. And, it directed the Commission
to relax our one-to-a-market rules and eliminate the cable/broadcast ownership
rule. In my view, all of this liberalization delivers a clear message.

But
despite this clear message, there are still some who don't seem to be
listening to Congress. Again, they argue that liberalization will lead
to the loss of localism and diversity. Now, some of these folks have an
ulterior motive that I will get to in a few minutes, but first, let's
focus on localism.

Some
argue that localism will be lost if there is industry consolidation. They
claim big companies will turn their backs on serving local needs. But
as you and I know, successful broadcasters would as soon abandon localism
as put hemlock in their coffee!

I'll
tell you -- I've learned a few things in my tenure as a Commissioner,
and one of those things is that terrestrial radio broadcasters, regardless
of the size of their parent company, know that localism is what makes
them successful. It's what differentiates you from your new competitors
-- competitors like cable-provided audio, DARs, Internet radio, and CD
players.

Another
thing that I have learned is that permitting one entity to own multiple
stations in a market doesn't necessarily harm diversity. Quite the contrary,
a single owner of multiple stations might be in a position to counter-program,
using a format that could not be sustained on a stand-alone station. When
that happens, listeners get more choice, not less.

In
short, I believe the radio industry -- not government -- should decide
how to deal with the new competitive realities that you face. Thus, I
urge you to stand up for the liberalization that Congress clearly intended.

This
leads me to my favorite topic, the First Amendment. Last July, in a speech
to the California Broadcasters Association, I called for an end to increased
government intrusion into program content decisions. This speech got a
surprising amount of press coverage, given that I have been singing that
song for many years.

Let
me cut to the chase. During my term, I have witnessed an insidious trend
toward limiting the First Amendment freedom of broadcasters. If you will
forgive a rather graphic example, particularly during lunch, what we have
here is a "frog boiling" issue. You see, if you try to put a live frog
in a pot of boiling water, that poor froggie will jump out. But if you
put that live frog in a nice pot of cool water, and gradually turn up
the heat, the frog will paddle about in the water until it is, well, frog
legs.

So
it has gone with the intrusions in the past four years into the programming
decisions of the broadcast industry. Time and time again, broadcasters
have been asked to acquiesce to the government's wishes on programming
issues. It didn't start with too much heat, but over time, the heat has
continued to be turned up one notch at a time, as one demand after the
next came from the powers that be. "Do it for the children, do it for
family values, do it as part of your public interest obligating, do it
for public safety, do it in exchange for a digital TV licenses, do it
for a waiver of an ownership rule. . . " (The latter was the ulterior
motive that I alluded to before.)

From
my catbird seat at the FCC, I've watched with increasing alarm as the
heat has gradually risen. In retrospect, it didn't happen without warning.
In a September 1995 speech, Chairman Reed Hundt said that he wanted to
transform our general public interest obligation into "concrete" and "quantifiable"
programming commitments enforceable through fines or possibly non-renewal
of broadcast licenses. With the clarity of hindsight, one can see that
this concept of converting the public interest into specific programming
commitments was his springboard into intrusive government content regulation.

For
example, quantification of programming commitments was the most hard fought
issue in our children's educational television proceeding. Although three
commissioners strongly opposed the strict quantitative approach advocated
by the Chairman, the FCC and television industry -- after a "turning up
of the heat" via a White House summit -- eventually accepted a staff processing
guideline of three hours a week. The guideline approach has a quantification
aspect, but it also provides a measure of flexibility that to some degree
protects a broadcaster's discretion. So, I guess that was just a little
heat under the frog pot.

But
the heat went up with the TV rating controversy. Again, some Congress
members, aided by the White House, helped "convince" the video programming
industry that they should "voluntarily" develop a TV rating system with
particular content indicators. I think Producer Dick Wolf put it best
when he said the rating system was "about as 'voluntary' as somebody handing
over their wallet when there's a .45 pointed between their eyes." And
it was Ted Turner who said, in a Yogi Berra-esque way, "We are voluntarily
doing a rating system because we have been required to."

Recently,
there have been more attempts to turn up the heat at the FCC. These included
the FCC's very public dispute over the need for a Notice of Inquiry on
distilled spirits advertisements. There, Chairman Hundt argued that he
only wanted to start a "neutral inquiry," to provide a forum for debate
of an important social issue. Well, just like there was nothing truly
"voluntary" about the ratings system, there would have been nothing truly
"neutral" about this inquiry. This is one reason why Commissioner Quello
and I refused to support it.

In
sum, we have opposed efforts to launch inquiries that are really thinly-
disguised efforts to dictate program content. I believe that Congress,
as our elected representatives, should decide by statute what content
issues the FCC should address. And the courts agree with me. You see,
they recognize that it is just too dangerous to let unelected government
officials dictate program content without specific Congressional direction.

It
is for this same reason that I vehemently disagree with Chairman Hundt's
inflammatory suggestion that there ought to be governmental policies to
"assure that news is broadly and in some sense fairly communicated through
the electronic media." Hundt's approach is particularly offensive to the
First Amendment's guarantee of a free press, because in no way does the
First Amendment countenance government deciding whether news is being
presented "fairly" or setting government policies to ensure balanced news.

So,
broadcasters, let me ask you: Is the water getting uncomfortably warm
for you yet? If so, beware because more heat is on the way. . . Look next
for more heat in relation to public interest obligations in the digital
era. One of the key issues is the call for mandated free air time for
political candidates.

The
free time debate is being staged in several forums. It is on the agenda
of a new presidential commission. There are also a number of bills pending
in Congress. Last year, at the Chairman's request, it was a topic at the
FCC too. The Chairman asked us to hold an en banc hearing on political
broadcasting, where numerous speakers said that broadcasters, as part
of their public interest obligation, should give candidates free television
time.

The
argument goes as follows: "Broadcasters use the public airwaves for free
and free air time would defray the costs of campaigning. So why shouldn't
the FCC do a 'neutral inquiry' and perhaps order broadcasters to donate
air time as part of their public interest obligation?" If you follow this
line of reasoning, maybe we should ask airlines to give free airplane
seats to political candidates -- airlines also use the public airways,
and with the cost of flying, free seats surely would defray campaign costs
too!

In
the last two weeks, the Chairman argued that free time for political candidates
was necessary to "save the democracy." And he asked why we couldn't have
a "neutral inquiry" on the topic. Showing the true neutrality of his intentions,
however, he went on to say, "I assure you that if I had the votes [the
FCC] would long since have defined the public interest to include free
time." Needless to say, the departing Chairman did not have the votes
to work his will.

As
I complete my watch at the FCC, I would like to emphasize that our First
Amendment tradition mandates that broadcasters must be free to present
whatever programming they believe will best suit the needs of their local
audience. Except when there is a compelling government interest and it
has chosen the most narrowly tailored way, government is forbidden from
censoring your content or otherwise dictating categories of programming
you must or must not show.

Having
said that, I recognize that there are some limits on broadcast content
that are part of the Communications Act, and have been upheld by the courts.
These limits include obscenity, indecency, kids' educational programming,
and some political broadcasting rules. Although the FCC must enforce such
laws, it ought not expand the law to suit the whim of individual regulators.
Our freedom as a nation is too important for that.

And
so, I have come to New Orleans today to urge each of you to speak out.
Oppose government intrusion into your programming decisions. Don't sit
quietly in your frog pot -- assuming that you must take the heat for business
reasons. Leap out of the pot, and voice your opposition to content regulation.

Speak
out in any way you can, including through written and on-air editorials,
and your public affairs programming.

Do
it by lending support only to candidates and politicians who are sensitive
to First Amendment issues.

Do
it by using the combined strength of your association. I applaud NAB's
decision to relaunch its education foundation with a focus on First Amendment
issues. I think it wise that NAB has asked you to keep careful records
of all the public service you do. NAB is in an excellent position to gather
this data, marshal your arguments, and lead the fight for free speech.

Get
off your duffs and fly to Washington to lobby legislators, White House
and FCC Commissioners.

And
finally, most importantly, strengthen your arguments for free speech by
being responsible and responsive broadcasters. By this, I mean be responsible
in your programming decisions and be responsive to the concerns of parents
about violence, sex and adult language during hours when children are
likely to hear it.

In
sum, having found yourself in some very regrettable hot water, you can
choose to jump out of the pot and to vigorously object while there's still
life in you. But if you don't choose to fight but to take the heat passively,
you will have no one but yourself to blame if you find yourself "dead
in the water" on First Amendment issues. It's not easy being green.

Thank
you very much.

Sources: A copy
of this speech is also available at <http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Chong/sprbc712.html>.Copyright information: Gifts of Speech believes that for copyright purposes, this speech is in the public domain since it was made by a U.S. government official. Any use of this speech, however, should show proper attribution to its author.